lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

I hope the bill is dead too!! It is not fixed by any means..

Single payer is what will come of all of this with separate coverage provided by the Feds on pre existing conditions and or catastrophic losses included in that pre existing.. Was arbs meeting the other day where the speaker brought up what they suspect is really in motion..

Open up free trade throughout the states is good on helping to have a competitive market but that alone is no major help... The Insurance companies are just as involved with this as they were on the formation of BO Care but now their smarter about their loss prevention and it's going to be all out war..

Also I understand the vote is to be done Thursday so I'm confused by woods comments??

woodssprite 17

Don't you listen to anything except Fox News? The committee members were interviewed as they came out of the committee meeting concerning Trump care. The Republicans interviewed said that the bill was dead.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I read a great article by an attorney on health care. I will try to find it but his complaints and solutions were quite simple. First he thinks it illegal (I forget the statutes on monopolies) and points out health insurers have created a monopoly that would not be tolerated in any other business. He also says charging people for products and procedures without being transparent about the costs is some sort of violation. His example was if you ordered a cheeseburger and it cost you $10, would you stand for the person next to you getting charged $5 for the same burger? Of course not. He thinks that health insurance needs to be free of all government constraints, transparent and readily available across state lines. Anyone with pre-existing conditions or indigent would be put in high risk pools and subsidized state by state, through possibly a state consumption tax or some other way.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Yes I do and like I said I hope it is but the official vote has to take place so it's on the record.. I'll take it when it's real, not opinion...

woodssprite 17

It's the some other ways that worry me. Health Insurance Cos. Are already gouging thier subscribers out of billions yearly. They need to be held accountable.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

No need my man. I 've read plenty from you on this and already admit you could be right. I just have a problem that anything that large run by government will one, not be run efficiently and two, not be run fairly. I know nothing I could say would dissuade you from your opinion. I just wish we could make more individual choices in this country. I detest the health insurers about as much as I do politicians.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Yes, what you say was also touched upon the " pools" you are referring to would be mandated to the insurance companies writing the business at all, and if they want to continue to be allowed to sell it, they would need to factor it with government reimbursement for x% reimbursement to them on just those coverages.. I'm a big supporter of States and while it does shift the burden to the state it offers a reimbursement fund too..

Colorado just got voted down by the tax payers in starting Colorado Health this last election.. it may become an issue of necessity for some and if true to recover Federal funds on the high risk pools???

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

No problem. Probably an ID ten T failure. Might even be PICNIC. Had me going there for a minute, though.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Get no argument here, either!! We don't need government running our healthcare period.. it's not a government issue at all until BO made it such.. Anything resembling Socialist behavior in this country must be resisted or your One World Order will be ruling sooner than later..

buffalo Loc: Texas

Lindajoy, government (the taxpayers) already fund 64.7% of health CARE expenses in the US. Medicare, Medicaid, VA, the health INSURANCE of all federal, state and local employees, and tax subsidies to big health INSURANCE corporations.

HR 676 does not change the way health CARE is administered, it changes the way it is financed by cutting out the $500 BILLION/year profit extracting vultures of the health INSURANCE corporations that through high unaffordable premiums, unaffordable deductions and denial of claims do not add anything to the health care system, only take from it.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Buffalo, I believe you over anyone else about this right now...Have you actually seen the Ryan bill ?? I have not.. Bits and pieces but not the actual revamped or amended version and would love to see it...

Of 676 this does concern me:

There is one summary for H.R.676. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/24/2017)

Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Act

This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

Only public or nonprofit institutions may participate. Nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities may participate.

Patients may choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Health insurers may not sell health insurance that duplicates the benefits provided under this bill. Insurers may sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

The bill sets forth methods to pay institutional providers and health professionals for services. Financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization are prohibited.

The program is funded: (1) from existing sources of government revenues for health care, (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income earners, (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income, (4) by instituting a tax on unearned income, and (5) by instituting a tax on stock and bond transactions. Amounts that would have been appropriated for federal public health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), are transferred and appropriated to carry out this bill.

The program must give employment transition benefits and first priority in retraining and job placement to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced clerical and administrative work under this bill.

The Department of Health and Human Services must create a confidential electronic patient record system.~~ where the heck has our privacy hone?? Thank You, not, BO., and all these graduated taxes just don't look good or have a cap....

And since I'm not on Medicare has it always been a HMO format?? My mothers was s PPO format, I thought.. I know I just took her to her Drs and between her Medicare and between her Medicare and BC/BS she paid nothing or had to be referred by a primary Dr etc

Are you concerned with what these graduated taxes will do to the retired living on a fixed income??

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

lindajoy wrote:
Buffalo, I believe you over anyone else about this... (show quote)
---------------------
What I find ironic is that the title of this post says "Healthcare - Fixed. (S222 & S554). I have reviewed the 20 some replies and, correct me if I am wrong, not one person has addressed the replacement alternative that Rand Paul has proposed, which is S-554.

If the Ryan bill does not make it out of the House, then an alternative proposal will need to be considered. There are several competing plans out there, including Paul's S-554. I've read the highlights, and unlike the Ryan plan, it is simple to read, easy to understand, and employs "free market" principles, which is perhaps why no one gives this a chance to be adopted.

For those of you who are interested, here are the specifics of Paul's plan:

The Obamacare Replacement Act (S. 222) Sen. Rand Paul, M.D.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf

Here are the highlights from the full 1,500 word bill condensed down to the most consequential provisions:

Repealing Obamacare

Individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, rate review, essential health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates.

Protecting Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions

Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
Restores HIPAA protections which guarantee those within the group market could obtain continuous health coverage regardless of preexisting conditions.

Equalize the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance

All individuals are able to exclude the premium amount from their taxable income (previously only individuals who received health insurance through an employer were able to).
Universal deduction on both income and payroll taxes regardless of how an individual obtains their health insurance.

Expansion of Health Savings Accounts

Provides individuals the option of a tax credit of up to $5,000 per taxpayer for contributions to an HSA and removes the maximum allowable annual contribution.
Eliminates the requirement that a participant in an HSA be enrolled in a high deductible health care plan
Allows prescription and OTC drug costs to be treated as allowable expenses of HSAs.
Allow purchase of Health Insurance from HSA Account
Allows qualified expenses incurred prior to HSA establishment to be reimbursed from an HSA as long as the account is established prior to tax filing.
Allows an account holder’s HSA to rollover to a child, parent, or grandparent, in addition to a spouse.
Creates Bankruptcy Protections for HSAs as Retirement Funds
Expands allowable HSA expenses to include equipment for physical exercise or health coaching, including weight loss programs and dietary and nutritional supplements
Allows HSA funds to be used for periodic fees paid to medical practitioners for access to medical care and pre-paid physician fees

Pool Reform for the Individual Market

Establishes Independent Health Pools (IHPs) in order to allow individuals to pool together for the purposes of purchasing insurance.
Amends the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to allow individuals to pool together to provide for health benefits coverage through Individual Health Pools (IHPs). These can include non-profit organizations so long as the organization does not condition membership on any health status-related factor.
Requires that the IHP will provide insurance through contracts with health insurance issuers in fully insured plans and not assume insurance risk with respect to such coverage. Allows the IHP to provide administrative services to members, including accounting, billings, and enrollment information.

Interstate Market for Health Insurance

Allowing insurers licensed to sell policies in one state to offer them to residents of any other state.
Exempts issuers from secondary state laws that would prohibit or regulate their operation in the secondary state

Association Health Plans

AHPs allow small businesses to pool together across state lines through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for their employees and their families.
Amends ERISA to define AHPs and allow for their treatment as if they were large group single employer health plans

Increasing State Flexibility to Conduct Medicaid Waivers

Provides new flexibilities to states in their Medicaid plan design, through existing waiver authority in current law.
This provision would allow states to make changes to their Medicaid plans without interference from Washington.
As you can see, Rand Paul’s Obamacare Replacement Act is a win-win for Republicans and President Trump who are desperate for a solution. Instead of waiting around another year like Paul Ryan suggested might happen they get a quick fix immediately. This bill will stop the Obamacare’s unraveling and begin repairing the damage the law has caused to the healthcare industry and insurance markets. It can’t wait any longer. As soon as Obamacare is finally repealed it must be replaced, and Rand Paul’s bill is the most comprehensive measure for accomplishing that.

buffalo Loc: Texas

First off, HR676 is not FREE. People will pay for it. It will not be nearly as expensive as private health INSURANCE. It is estimated that 95% of taxpayers will SAVE money under the Improved and Expanded Medicare for All Act. As I understand the bill as written only those in the top 5% will pay slightly more in taxes. With the elimination of high premiums, high deductibles and co-pays, the vast majority of taxpayers will save money even after paying more taxes.

As it is, the arguments against HR676 are not even honest. Medical CARE should be considered a right for ALL. As it is now, some people, mainly the poor, get to treat it as a right, while the average taxpayers that pay for them to have that right have to treat their medical CARE as a bankrupting privilege. The super wealthy don't count, as they can easily afford health CARE.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

This again? Really? I thought we already put this one to bed. OK well, we can go around the houses one more time I guess, in the interest of.... whatever it is in the interest of.

First. A 'right' is not something somebody else pays for. A right is something that has no inherent cost associated with its exercise. For instance, 'freedom of speech' is a right. It costs nobody anything if you speak. To bear arms is a right. It costs nobody (except you, of course) anything, no matter how you arm yourself. Then there's the right to privacy, etc. OK, now that we understand that a right is an activity or prerogative that is only likely to cost the person exercising that right anything, let's consider some of the more modern (and more expensive) 'rights'.

Aaaaand jumping straight in..... Healthcare. Let's consider this for a moment. Premise: Healthcare as a 'right', same as speech or privacy. Everybody needs healthcare so it is supposed to be a right. OK, so I get sick and go to the doctor, the doctor checks me over, writes me a prescription and wants to see me again in 10 days. I go to the pharmacy with my prescription and pick up my medicine. 10 days later, I see the doctor again and he is pleased to give me a clean bill of health. The system has worked as it was designed and I go back to work, happy and healthy. Eeeeexceeeeept.....

So let's unpack that little story some. The doctor is a professional physician who spent 7 to 10 years in college/university and several more years as a houseman in a hospital being taught the trade. Let's round that off to an even 10 years and call him a general practitioner. OK so he has one function in his professional life - to treat sick people. And he spent 10 years and over a million dollars learning how to do it. So how does he eat? He must charge people for his services as a physician or find a second job, right?

So, before I even leave the doctor's office, someone has to pay the doctor.

The pharmacist who fills my prescription is also a highly educated professional who also spent close to 7 years at college/university and usually is tasked with purchasing some very expensive tools of the trade. Even worse than the doctor, the pharmacist must buy the raw materials required to produce the prescribed medicine and he too must eat, so he too must charge for his product and/or services.

So, before I even take the first dose of medicine, someone has to pay the pharmacist (and, by proxy, the pharmaceutical company).

And then, after my 10 days of medication, I again show up at the doctor's office. Same as before.

So, someone has to pay the doctor, yet again.

But I am only a lowly street sweeper, and cannot afford to pay these high wages and exorbitant medical costs for the doctor, the pharmacist or the pharmaceutical company (the latter being a total ripoff, in my opinion). Whatever shall I do?

OK so here's my options:

Carry health insurance. There will most likely be a deductible but at least the cost is not ruinous. Of course, there is that monthly payment to make, month in, month out. These days it ain't cheap - government regulation, anyone?

Borrow the money. This will spread the cost out over a period of months or years. The bank will listen, and many hospitals will offer this option. Banks need collateral. Hospitals need to see an excellent credit score.

Sell off property. Simply head to the second-hand store and get what I can for my prized possessions. If it's really expensive, my car might have to go. Hopefully it's enough.

Look for a donor. Parents and siblings may be open to putting something together to help ease the burden. Some charities are in existence to help with medical catastrophes. Some hospitals are also registered charities. Nobody ever got shot for asking. Tell 'em Larry said....

Some combination of the above. Maybe my insurance pays up and I cover the deductible with the other options. Maybe I have no insurance and really have to hash it together.

Of course, there are some, shall we say, less than legal options that we shall not go into here.

And there are probably other (legal) options that I have not thought of. I bet my highly educated and widely knowledgeable friends here on OPP will be more than happy to point them out... (head explosion in 3... 2... 1-1/2... 1-1/4...)

Let government pay. 'Sure, why not? Government deals in billions every day, what harm is another 20 grand going to do? They're rolling in money!' Yes, they are, they're rolling in other peoples' money that was garnered by force and threats of violence against those who had no choice but to pay. Taking money from government just makes it that much worse for those who are forced to pay up. Oh, and the act of forcing someone to pay a debt for a third party is a very insidious form of political arrangement called socialism. Socialism is the exact opposite of our Constitutional Republican form of government. In our form of government, if it ain't allowed by the original agreement (the Constitution of 1789), it ain't allowed, period; and socialism ain't allowed.

Now, will you please quit inventing new 'rights' for the rest of us to pay for? If you're really so much in love with socialism, there's a country south of here called Venezuela that will be happy to eat you. (Meet! I meant MEET! Not 'eat'. Though they are very hungry right now, like literally, because 'socialism'.)

buffalo Loc: Texas

Very funny, NOT!

If health CARE is not a right, then what happens to you, as the lowly street sweeper, that cannot afford the high premiums and deductibles charged by the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations, have no money saved because it takes every penny of your lowly street sweeper pay just to feed, cloth and house you and your family, yet make just enough to not qualify for a subsidy, when you show up at the emergency room with the severe chest pains of a full blown heart attack? You will be treated with every available medical process for a heart attack or promptly shipped by ambulance or helicopter to the nearest medical facility that can just as if you had money or insurance because IT IS THE LAW! If you are not or turned away your survivors can SUE. Now, tell me that is not a right to medical CARE. Ever hear of EMTALA? If some can treat it as a right, why can't every one get to treat it as a right?

Government (we taxpayers) already pay for 64.7% of the cost of medical CARE in the US. Think Medicare (the elderly) and Medicaid (the poor), why because they are NOT profitable to the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations with huge government subsidies. HR676 (Improved and Expanded Medicare for All) has been proven to save 95% of the taxpayers money. It is just a different way of financing health CARE than the patchwork, dishonest system we have now.